Allowed

Sumanth @ Suman v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC26 Jul 2022CRL.A/839/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Appeal filed to set aside an order rejecting bail. The Court found enmity existed between accused no.1 and deceased, with appellant being an associate. Lacking eye witnesses and direct evidence of caste-induced killing, the Court allowed the appeal and admitted the appellant to bail under specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was set aside; the bail application was allowed; accused admitted to bail on bond of Rs. 2,00,000 with conditions.

Sumanth @ Suman Vs State of Karnataka — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.839 OF 2022

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Sumanth @ Suman S/o Nagaraj Aged about 23 years R/at No.139, 1^st Main 1^st Cross, Krishnaiah Palya Indiranagar Post Bengaluru-560 039.

¶8

…Appellant

¶9

(By Sri R.V. Rajashekara, Advocate)

¶10

AND:

¶11

State of Karnataka By its Station House Officer Ramamurthy Nagar Police Bengaluru-560 016 Rep. by State Public Prosecutor High Court Building Bengaluru-560 001.

¶12

Smt. Subbamma W/o Late Shrinivas Aged about 52 years Near Muneshwar Temple Krishnaiahna Palya Byappanahalli Bengaluru City-560 039.

¶13

…Respondents

¶14

(By Sri K. Rahul Rai, HCGP for R1; R2 - served)

¶15

:: 2 ::

¶16

This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 14(A)(2) SC/ST (POA), praying to set aside the order dated 22.04.2022 in Spl. C.C. No.824/2021 in CR. No.123/2021 Ramamurthy Nagara Police, Bengaluru City passed by the learned LXX City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for release him on bail for the alleged offence P/U/S.120-B, 302 read with Section 149 of IPC, Section 25 of Arms Act and Section 3(2)(v)(va) of SC/ST Act, 1989 pending on the file of the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge at Bengaluru (CCH-71).

¶17

This Criminal Appeal coming on for admission this day, the Court delivered the following:

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

This appeal is filed under section 14(A) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (‘SC/ST Act’ for short). Accused no.6 is the appellant, he has challenged the order dated 22.04.2022 passed by the Special Court rejecting his application for bail under section 439 Cr.P.C.

¶20

:: 3 ::

¶21

Heard Sri. Rajashekara R.V., learned

¶22

counsel for the appellant and the Government Pleader. Respondent no.2 is served with notice, but there is no representation on his behalf.

¶23

In the incident said to have taken place in the intervening night of 28/29.3.2021, one Ravi @ Paul Ravi was killed. The charge sheet shows that there was personal enmity between the deceased and accused no.1. In furtherance of this enemity, accused no.1 attacked the deceased two or three times earlier, but his attempts to kill the deceased failed and ultimately in the intervening night of 28/29.3.2021, when the deceased was standing near an arch taking liquor, accused nos.1,2,3 and 4 killed him.

¶24

There are no eye witnesses to the incident. In the charge sheet, the overt act attributed to the appellant is that he dashed his car to the motorcycle of the deceased and knocked him

¶25

:: 4 ::

¶26

down. Thereafter accused nos.1,2,3 and 4

¶27

inflicted injuries to the deceased.

¶28

Learned Government Pleader opposes the

¶29

appeal by submitting that the investigating officer was able to recover the blood stained clothes of the appellant and the mobile phone at his instance and thereby his participation in commission of crime is forthcoming. Thus there are materials indicating his involvement and therefore bail should not be granted.

¶30

On perusal of the entire charge sheet, it is found that the enemity was between accused no.1 and the deceased and the appellant herein was just an associate of accused no.5. There are no eye witnesses and the entire case rests on circumstantial evidence. Except recovery of blood stained clothes, there are no materials indicating the direct involvement of the appellant in the crime. It may also be stated that merely for the

¶31

:: 5 ::

¶32

reason that appellant belonged to schedule caste, the provisions of SC/ST Act have been invoked in the charge sheet. There are no materials indicating that the deceased was done to death in the background of caste rivalry. Already accused no.5 and 7 have been admitted to bail. So, if all these aspects are considered, the appellant too becomes entitled to bail. In this view the impugned order cannot be sustained. Hence the following:

¶33

ORDER

¶34

Appeal is allowed.

¶35

The order passed by the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-71) dated 22.04.2022 in Spl.C.No.824/2021 on the application of the appellant under Section 439 Cr.P.C., is set aside. The said application is allowed.

¶36

The appellant is admitted to bail on obtaining from him a bond for Rs.2,00,000/- (Two Lakhs only) and

¶37

:: 6 ::

¶38

providing two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial court. The appellant is also subjected to following conditions:-

¶39

i. He shall not tamper with the evidence collected by the investigating officer and threaten the witnesses.

¶40

ii. He shall regularly appear before the trial court till conclusion of the trial.

¶41

iii. Till conclusion of the trial, the appellant shall mark his attendance before the jurisdictional police (Ramamurthy Nagar Police Station) once in 15 days, preferably on Sunday between 9 am and 12 noon.

¶42

iv. He shall not get involved in any other criminal case/s in future. In case of any FIR is registered against him, the same will be considered for cancellation of bail.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

Sumanth @ Suman v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumanth @ Suman v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Sumithra Bhat Vs Mr. Ben Compose

Sri.Kedila Narasimha Bhat Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Jyothi Electricals Vs Jaypee Cement Corporation Limited

M/S Komarla Feeds Vs N Sathish

M. Pradeep Vs K.Anupa

Sri Subramanya Vs Sri.H.v.Yogesh